9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy For The Respondents : G.P. for Commercial Tax and Mr. T. Vinod Kumar ORDER: (Per V. Ramasubramanian, J) Challenging the action of the 1st respondent in ordering the forfeiture of an amount of Rs. 1,44,03,978/-, being the excess tax credit available to the petitioner through an assessment order dated 25.08.2018, the Dealer under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Telangana VAT Rules, 2005. The show cause notice proceeded on the basis that the excess amount belonged to the Government, since the tax had already been loaded in the estimates in terms of G.O.Ms.No.11 Finance (Works and Projects F8) dated 29.06.2005. 5. The petitioner filed objections, pointing out that they had executed works only as Sub-Contractor and that there was no question of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be forfeited is for a sum of Rs. 1,44,03,978/-. An order under the Act cannot exceed the proposal made in the show-cause notice. 8. Moreover, the 1st respondent does not appear to have applied his mind to the very applicability of G.O.Ms.No.11, to a Sub- Contractor. The fact that the petitioner was a Sub-Contractor and the fact that the contract was EPC Turnkey contract, was also not gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
